3 ms·

A big issue — at least in the US — is that American laws don’t work well because one American party wishes to destroy government to cut taxes on the rich. Beca

A big issue — at least in the US — is that American laws don’t work well because one American party wishes to destroy government to cut taxes on the rich. Because that is their goal, they want government to work badly. So they obstruct change and improvement. Any system of laws needs to be changed as loopholes are discovered to improve the law. We can’t do that in the US because billionaires own one of our two parties.

jki275 8y ago
Not all change is improvement, and the changes proposed by the (current) minority party are not to "improve the law", but to take more from those who work and give it to those who do not. I challenge you to find that particular sentiment anywhere in our founding documents -- if you think it ought to be there, there's a political process to put it there. And the generic sentiment about how horrid it is to "cut taxes on the rich" ignores the fact that taxes almost exclusively impact "the rich" as about 40% of the population pays essentially zero taxes. It's very difficult to cut taxes on those who do not pay them.
- caconym_ 8y ago
  "The rich" ~= 60% of the population? Yikes. How many percents are you including in your "almost"?
  - jki275 8y ago
    Well that's the question, where do you draw the line. Income tax is actually quite low for even a significant amount of the 60% above that no-tax line. It also ignores the fact that a significant amount of those in that 40% actually get paid credits back at tax time that they didn't pay in. That phenomenon is so well known that January-April sees a significant spike in Xbox and big screen TV sales from that money the government injects into the economy using EIC and other refundable credits. Ultimately I'd rather see people who are investing in building businesses that hire people to get tax cuts, as those can meaningfully impact the economy. Our current tax scheme of high corporate tax and high personal capital gains tax directly disincentivizes investment and economic growth.
    - caconym_ 8y ago
      Well, I certainly don't draw the line somewhere that makes 60% of the US population definitionally "rich", nor do I think being able to afford an Xbox and a "big screen TV" qualifies one as such. Personally I would draw it at an income where someone living within their means can afford to raise a happy, healthy, well-educated family and provide all with proper dental and medical care, including responses to unforeseen and serious emergencies, without being financially destroyed, and go on to retire in relative comfort. Beyond that, you and I have deep ideological differences that I hardly think are worth airing in an internet forum, and I'm not going to bother.
      - jki275 8y ago
        I didn't say that either of those defines "rich". I said that a significant portion of the US doesn't pay taxes. Most people would disagree with your definition as well, that's normal middle class, not rich. And most of them don't pay much in taxes either.
        caconym_ 8y ago
        > I didn't say that either of those defines "rich". I said that a significant portion of the US doesn't pay taxes Well, I didn't say you said that, so we're good. I'd say I more implied that you implied it. > Most people would disagree with your definition as well, that's normal middle class, not rich. Yes, that does sound more like a middle class lifestyle than a "rich" one, doesn't it? > And most of them don't pay much in taxes either. Most of who? A hypothetical middle class that meets my (possibly flawed) criteria for richness, or an actual middle class as defined by some percentile spread about the median household income? What rate of taxation is "much in taxes"?
        jki275 8y ago
        When I was squarely middle class I normally didn't pay more than about 5k in annual federal income taxes. That's pretty reasonable. It's also hard to cut a number that small. When you get into paying 50k, 100k+ in taxes, then a percentage tax cut will appear much larger. I know plenty of people who have about 2k withheld throughout the year and then get 5k-15k "refunds" at the end of the year. That's what I was referring to with the xbox and tv comment, those refunds are often spent that way.

jki275 8y ago

Not all change is improvement, and the changes proposed by the (current) minority party are not to "improve the law", but to take more from those who work and give it to those who do not. I challenge you to find that particular sentiment anywhere in our founding documents -- if you think it ought to be there, there's a political process to put it there. And the generic sentiment about how horrid it is to "cut taxes on the rich" ignores the fact that taxes almost exclusively impact "the rich" as about 40% of the population pays essentially zero taxes. It's very difficult to cut taxes on those who do not pay them.

caconym_ 8y ago
"The rich" ~= 60% of the population? Yikes. How many percents are you including in your "almost"?
- jki275 8y ago
  Well that's the question, where do you draw the line. Income tax is actually quite low for even a significant amount of the 60% above that no-tax line. It also ignores the fact that a significant amount of those in that 40% actually get paid credits back at tax time that they didn't pay in. That phenomenon is so well known that January-April sees a significant spike in Xbox and big screen TV sales from that money the government injects into the economy using EIC and other refundable credits. Ultimately I'd rather see people who are investing in building businesses that hire people to get tax cuts, as those can meaningfully impact the economy. Our current tax scheme of high corporate tax and high personal capital gains tax directly disincentivizes investment and economic growth.
  - caconym_ 8y ago
    Well, I certainly don't draw the line somewhere that makes 60% of the US population definitionally "rich", nor do I think being able to afford an Xbox and a "big screen TV" qualifies one as such. Personally I would draw it at an income where someone living within their means can afford to raise a happy, healthy, well-educated family and provide all with proper dental and medical care, including responses to unforeseen and serious emergencies, without being financially destroyed, and go on to retire in relative comfort. Beyond that, you and I have deep ideological differences that I hardly think are worth airing in an internet forum, and I'm not going to bother.
    - jki275 8y ago
      I didn't say that either of those defines "rich". I said that a significant portion of the US doesn't pay taxes. Most people would disagree with your definition as well, that's normal middle class, not rich. And most of them don't pay much in taxes either.
      - caconym_ 8y ago
        > I didn't say that either of those defines "rich". I said that a significant portion of the US doesn't pay taxes Well, I didn't say you said that, so we're good. I'd say I more implied that you implied it. > Most people would disagree with your definition as well, that's normal middle class, not rich. Yes, that does sound more like a middle class lifestyle than a "rich" one, doesn't it? > And most of them don't pay much in taxes either. Most of who? A hypothetical middle class that meets my (possibly flawed) criteria for richness, or an actual middle class as defined by some percentile spread about the median household income? What rate of taxation is "much in taxes"?
        jki275 8y ago
        When I was squarely middle class I normally didn't pay more than about 5k in annual federal income taxes. That's pretty reasonable. It's also hard to cut a number that small. When you get into paying 50k, 100k+ in taxes, then a percentage tax cut will appear much larger. I know plenty of people who have about 2k withheld throughout the year and then get 5k-15k "refunds" at the end of the year. That's what I was referring to with the xbox and tv comment, those refunds are often spent that way.